In the last post I developed the idea of flesh/spirit, particularly from the angle of eschatology. To understanding the Spirit biblically, it must be considered in light of eschatology because the Spirit is the life and power of the age to come. The Spirit is not simply a force or power, but a person who is drawing the entire created order towards God’s future, renewing life and overcoming the powers of death and disorder. Understanding what the “flesh” is, has extremely practical implications for the life of faith and the orientation of one’s focus with regard to sanctification.We all know the “flesh” is bad and we should be against it, therefore the identification of this enemy is crucial in warring against it. In the last post I employed the methodology that we start with the solution and then explicate the problem rather than vice versa. Instead of beginning with a description of the flesh, we first described the nature of the Spirit and then were able to discern the contours of our enemy “the flesh.” In that post we looked at the Spirit through the lens of eschatology. Now we will look at the Spirit through the lens of the Trinity and seek to explicate “the flesh” from that perspective.

The doctrine of the Trinity tells us that God’s own being resides in the inter-relations between Father, Son and Spirit. The foundational underlying reality of God’s being is not the individual persons of the Godhead, but their communion of love with each other. Since humans are made in God’s image, this tells us that contrary to Boethius, the “basic atomic reality of humanity,” the essential indivisible constituency of humanity is not the individual, but the community. The existence of the community is ontologically and biologically prior to the individual. Our true humanity is only expressed, not as individuals, but as persons in loving relationship. This illuminates the fundamental characteristic of holiness – perfect love. The holy person is the person who loves in relationships. Notions of holiness cannot be abstract, detached or impersonal. Rather, they must be concrete, involved and relational.

The Trinitarian understanding of human relationality also illuminates the negative dimensions of human existence that holiness and sanctification seek to overcome. Sin is often understood as either “pride” or alternatively “self-centeredness.” Advocates of both views often claim Augustinian grounding. Some see understanding “self-centeredness” as an improvement over “pride” in that it is rooted in a Trinitarian theology of love. Sin is disordered and inwardly focused love rather than simply pride. The phronema tes sarkos, the “mindset of the flesh” is thus understood as a “self-centered mind-set” or “mind set purely on human goals and values.” The problem with humanity is that it is inwardly bent in pursuit of self-sovereignty, self-glorification, self-promotion, self-sufficiency, self-importance and self-gratification.

However, what the doctrine of the Trinity tells us is that we cannot allow the individual to be the fundamental unit of reality. Thus our foundational concepts of sin and depravity cannot be at center individualistic. Sin and the flesh cannot be confined to the isolated disorder of the individual. They cannot solely be understood or explicated in terms of self-centeredness. They cannot be explained only with reference to the self if it is truly impossible to rescind one’s relational nature. As long as one exists in relationship, others are involved. Therefore the nature of sin and the disordered motivation of the flesh are better viewed as an active anti-love or even hatred towards others. One’s attitudes towards one’s self and the actions of one’s self always involve others in the form of their presence or absence.

Self-sovereignty always means other-subjugating. Self-glorification always means other de-valuing. Self- promotion always means other-diminishing. Self-sufficiency always means other-rejection. Pursuit of self-importance always means other-insignificance. Misbegotten self-gratification always entails the utilitarian exploitation of others or the refusal to be generous to others. The sin of “self” is in fact not merely the “sin of self.” It must always be interpreted and articulated in the light of the relationality that one fails to exist without. Hence, these self-bending sins are all in fact forms of anti-love, or even hatred.

This demonstrates that the application of the centrality of relationality to harmartiology (the doctrine of sin) does not “reduce” a concept of sin. Humans are not in fact indicted for “selfishness” alone but for various forms of hatred and violence against others. The concept of sin through the doctrine of the Trinity seems to actually radicalize the doctrine of sin. This furthermore necessitates that any solution to the notion of sin, as manifested in a form of positive holiness and sanctification, must radically address that while humans have an insatiable craving for relationship and an instinctual urge to abscond their unavoidable sense of loneliness, they simultaneously possess an, at times insidious and at times unambiguous, fear, aversion and hostility towards the very thing they crave.

Related posts

• The Person and History of the Holy Spirit Part 2: Trinitarian Ecstasy (0)
• The Person and History of the Holy Spirit Part 2: Trinitarian Ecstasy (cont.) (0)
• We’ve Been Unbabeled: When the Day of Pentecost Had Fully Come (Part 2) (1)
• The Ability to Love is Within Each of Us (1)
• Spirit and Flesh – Part 1 (1)

The Biblical discussion of the concepts of “flesh” and “spirit” are highly problematic for several reasons. “Flesh” is one of the grand enemies of the Christian, along with the “world” (another problematic term) and the “devil” (yet another problematic term…). Hence the Christian must “war against the flesh.” As long as this remains theoretical, no problems will surface. Difficulties appear, however, as soon as one seeks to locate this “flesh” and fight against it. What does Paul mean by “flesh?” The simplest answer is a vague approximation between “flesh” and either materiality or bodily existence. I once had someone, when explaining what “flesh” was, dramatically pinch and pull the skin on his arm to make explicitly concrete this vile affiliation with the body. Another thorny interpretation of “flesh” is to call it the “sinful nature” (as unfortunately the NIV and alas the TNIV translate the greek word sarx, literally “flesh”). The Bible NEVER explicitly speaks of a “sinful nature” (except in the NIV…). Nature means what is inherent and essential. If sin is thus inherent or essential to human existence, that would invalidate an original state of innocence (thus excluding a concept of a “fall”) and make an existence without sin in the age to come impossible. Sin is never part of the central, inviolable identity of human beings. As long as humans live on earth the stranglehold of sin can be broken and exposed as the alien obtrusion that it is. Albiet, I understand what people mean when they say “sinful nature” and would not deny the depraved state of humanity. Nevertheless, “sinful nature” IS NOT a biblical term and I believe it is not the best way to express the brokenness of humanity. This however, is well beside the point…

The crux of the issue is that the interpretation of flesh in correlation with bodily or essential human existence opens the door for quasi-gnosticism. Gnosticism in a nut shell is the ancient (and heretical) belief that (for simplicity’s sake) matter is inherently evil (has an evil/sinful nature) and spirit is good. The good spirits of people are trapped in wicked bodies and need to be released by an enlightened spirit messenger and by the acquisition of a higher knowledge (gnosis). Gnosticism was the PRIMARY heresy that the early church combated, precisely because from the beginning of the church it was the most destructive idea to authentic apostolic Christianity. This idea subtly continues in the church when we ascribe a bad or inferior status to the material world or specifically our bodies. This belief slowly, yet thoroughly deconstructs the meaning and power of apostolic doctrine in its belief of the goodness of God’s role as creator, his creation, the value of the life of the body and the renewal of the earth (check the tags “Gnosticism” and “new creation” for more on this).

This problem stems from a common approach to interpreting Paul, and the gospel in general, to first outline the “problem” for only then can the solution be understood. Rudolf Bultmann epitomized this view when he said, “after man-under-the-Law has been made to see his situation under it as that of the ‘miserable wretch’ groaning for deliverance from the ‘body of death’, he can then see the salvation-occurrence as salvation-bringing.”  Thus we look first at the problem – the problem is the flesh – and then discern the solution – opposing, eliminating or escaping the flesh.

E.P. Sanders has suggested that for Paul, the dilemma is not self-evident, but the solution provided in the Gospel illuminates the dilemma.  This line of thought can be fruitful for understanding the flesh-Spirit conflict. “Flesh” is not primarily seen as negative in itself. It is only in light of the solution provided in the gospel that “flesh” is then seen as negative.

Flesh in the Old Testament speaks of corporate humanity in their weakness and fragility. This was not seen as evil, but was understood as an inevitable reality of existence. All living beings came from the dust and to the dust they will return (Gen. 18:27; Ps 103:14; Eccles 12:7; cf. 1 Cor. 15:47). However, in the NT, particularly in Paul, “flesh” takes on an unprecedented and unequivocal negative meaning. Here it is not because of any kind of inherent evil nature of literal flesh, but rather because of a dramatic alteration in the situation previously described. Whereas formerly “flesh” described the negative but inevitable weakness that characterized human solidarity, the resurrection of Jesus has introduced a radical newness. The “inevitability” of the corruption and death of flesh is no longer such. Its overcoming has not only been envisaged but has in fact been actualized in and through the resurrection of Jesus. As resurrection and the Spirit functioned as synecdoches (a figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa) for God’s entire eschatological restoration program, so “flesh” becomes a synecdoche for all that God is renewing, restoring and replacing. “Flesh” is the dangling vestage of all that is contrary to God’s future for the world. Thus, the “mindset of the flesh” is not an “attachment to earthly-things.” How could one not be attached to earthly things? Humans are quite literally “earthlings” (the word for human in Hebrew is derived from the word for earth/ground). The mindset-of-the-flesh is rather that motivational force which seeks to maintain the status quo of sin, death, disorder, estrangement, alienation, suffering, injustice and unrighteousness over and against God’s work of new creation.

It is common to discuss the contrast of flesh and Spirit in terms of anthropology.  However, this is not possible. First of all, “Spirit,” in the fullest Pauline sense, is not a fundamental component of human being, if it can be called a component of human being at all. Rather it is a person of the Godhead. To speak of Spirit in human anthropology would be to dangerously blur the distinction between God and humans. Furthermore, “flesh,” in Pauline terminology, cannot even be called a fundamental constituent of human nature either. Though often equated with the physical body, Paul’s discussion of the flesh shows us that this cannot be the case. In Romans 8:9 he tells the believers “you are not in the flesh if the Spirit of God dwells in you.” What could this sentence possibly mean if the word “flesh” means the body or even “the body with regard to its sinfulness?” To push the physicality of “flesh” renders Paul as ludicrous in this statement. Rather, “flesh” is a sphere that individuals can be “in” or “out” of, and thus cannot be part of the “nature” of humans. Nature refers to the essential characteristics of an entity. If humans can be outside the realm of “flesh,” then flesh cannot be essential to them. Hence it is not part of their nature.

Altogether, neither “flesh” nor “spirit” can be used to discuss human nature in a fundamental way. This illuminates that for Paul these terms do not function primarily anthropologically, but rather eschatologically. It is recognized by many biblical scholars today, that a fully Biblical understanding of the Spirit cannot be gained apart from the larger context of eschatology. A neat scholastic schematic that would appropriate “flesh” to the doctrine of anthropology, the Spirit as a component of soteriology and eschatology to a theological appendix (if not appendage) will never grasp the symphonic nature of Pauline thought concerning these terms. Passages like Isaiah 11:2; 42:1; 61:1 show how Jewish Messianic concepts were strongly linked to the concept of the Spirit. Passages like Isaiah 4; 32:15; 44:3; Joel 2:28ff and Ezekiel 36-37 link the Spirit to the eschatological restoration of the people of God and God’s world. The Spirit who played a critical role in creation (Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4; Ps. 33:6; 104:29) will be mightily operative to recreate God’s precious yet disfigured world.

The disparaging way Paul speaks of “flesh” is not remotely Gnostic. It does not make a gradation of “spiritual” over “natural” or “soul” over “body.” Rather the flesh is that which corresponds to the age of Adam and participates in its death-drives. It is that which is in allegiance with everything contrary to God’s kingdom, God’s future for the world, where there will be no more death, no more mourning, no more cry and no more pain. Wars will cease to the ends of the earth. The broken-heart will be bound up, the captive will be set free, the afflicted will be comforted. The entire created order will be renewed as righteousness, peace, joy and love flood the earth in the knowledge of God. To war against the flesh is to oppose, live in contradiction with and confront everything that seeks perpetuate that which God’s kingdom eradicates. It means to embody by the power of the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead, first in our own lives and relationships, that which will be true universally in the age of come. It means to appropriate now the “already” of the Kingdom and to refuse accommodation to the “not yet,” despite its persistence. Though sin reigned in death, grace now reigns through righteousness leading to eternal life in the Messiah Jesus. We have been united with Him in his death and resurrection and even now the life force of the spring-time of all creation lies resident within us. To war against the flesh is not to despise our bodily, physical, emotional, relational, and exceedingly conflicted existence. Rather in the midst of the great conflict between a dying world which is passing away and a new world which is coming to birth in the midst of it, we are called to wholeheartedly embrace and love life as agents of new creation, to be the sphere in which the power of regeneration is made operative – for through us God will send forth his spirit and renew the face of the earth (Ps 104:31).

Related posts

• The Spirit of the Resurrection Part 2: Gnosticism and Schizoid Spirituality (3)
• The Spirit of the Resurrection (0)
• Resurrection and New Creation (Part 2) – Whirlwind Tour of the Gospel of John (3)
• New Creation…Starting Now (3)
• Heaven is Important…But it’s not the End of the World (0)

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.  2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus the Messiah has come in the flesh is from God;  3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the anti-messiah, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.” 1 John 4:1-3

These words from the apostle John are very strange to us. He seems to be establishing a litmus test to aid in discernment of whether or not something was of God. If evangelical Christians were in charge of writing this section of John we would probably have written that every spirit that does not confess that Jesus is divine is not from God. Something is Christian if it maintains Jesus’ status as fully God. Though true, this is not what John is emphasizing in this passage. In our zeal to defend the divinity of Jesus, which we should, at times we have lost sight of the significance of Jesus’ humanity. To John, the spirit that does not confess Jesus as fully human is not from God and is indeed the spirit of anti-messiah. This type of speech makes no sense for modern Christians who have too neatly split their constitution into a body and a soul, the soul being that which is obviously more important. I’ve spoken to many people who simply cannot identify with their bodies and insist that the “I,” “me,” or “self” is the soul living “inside” the body. Once establishing this type of strict dualism one is only a small step from denigrating the role of the body to an extreme. If the soul is the real me, if I am in essence a spirit-being, then my body is simply a shell that in actuality hinders the life of my soul. Salvation then becomes freedom from bodily, physical existence – a freedom from the earth to heaven. This type of logic is what John calls the “spirit of anti-messiah” and is commonly associated with the heresy called gnosticism. Biblical Christianity always asserts that “I” am the cojoining of body and soul. My body is not a possession of mine as if it were external to me. I do not “have” a body, I am a body.

Antichrist is a commonly misunderstood term. Modern use of the prefix “anti” means “opposed to” or “against.” However, this is not what the prefix meant in first century Koine Greek. Rather it means more along the lines of “instead of.” It implies not the idea of fierce opposition but substitution. The spirit of antichrist is not necessarily vociferously against Jesus but attempts to furnish a replacement Messiah. The Jesus without his physical body is not the Messiah. Even common language can be confusing. The term “incarnation” literally means in-fleshed. This can give the impression that Jesus is the “soul” and he went into a body.

This is not what the Bible says however. John 1:14 tells us that “the Word became flesh.” Jesus did enter a human, he became a human. He did not get a body, he became a body. A cursory reading of Colossians 2:9 could also be easily distorted: “For in Him (Jesus) all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.” The fullness of deity does not dwell in a body, but in bodily form, in other words the fulness of deity exists as a body. Again in Philippians 2, Paul says Jesus was “made in human likeness.” Jesus became something rather than merely indwelling a body. This is also affirmed by the historic creeds of the church. The Nicene creed proclaims that “by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became human.” Note the wording carefully: Jesus himself, not simply his body was born of the Virgin Mary. He himself became human.

The spirit of antichrist is that which does not confess (or denies) that Jesus has indeed come as a full human being. As George McDonald has said, in doing so Jesus has “forever hallowed the flesh.” The Athanasian creed (ca. 5th century) confesses that by the incarnation humanity was taken up into God’s own God-hood. In other words, the human body itself has been given an indescribable dignity beyond recognition. One would think that creation in the image of God was enough to afford respect to humanity, but furthermore has God glorified us in taking our own form into the divine fellowship of the Trinity. The spirit of antichrist seeks to replace this view of Jesus and its requisite view of humanity and the human body. The spirit of antichrist sees the human body as something so full of indignity that the divine cannot possibly take it on. Full blown forms will assert Jesus’ body to be an illusion while more insipid forms will see the body as simply a shell for the soul of divinity. The Spirit of God brings a radically different message of a God who does not scorn the flesh but draws near in the fullest manner possible, being made like us in every way (Hebrews 2:17) and thus declaring that human flesh is indeed worthy of partaking of the divine.

The implications of this are tremendous, and to them I will turn in a later post…

Related posts

• The Baptism of Our Lord (0)
• Spirit and Flesh – Part 1 (1)
• Resurrection and Justification Part 1 (0)
• Pentecost – The Coming of the Holy Spirit (0)
• Heaven is Important…But it’s not the End of the World (0)